Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[Ghery Pettit]

Those college kids made up that website as a dig at the breathless scare 
mongering by so many ecofreaks.  The whole site is a sendup of that silliness.  
I find it very humorous.  

 

Ghery S. Pettit

 

From: Ken Javor  
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

 

Those college students’ knee jerk reaction to a scientific name for a 
life-sustaining chemical is a perfect example of what I was saying below.  
Over-the-top, but very apropos.

College students. Soon we will be at the point where a non-technical college 
degree will be a negative incentive to hire someone.
 
From: Ghery Pettit mailto:n6...@comcast.net> >
Reply-To: mailto:n6...@comcast.net> >
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 13:29:20 -0700
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

Another chemical that is a problem in certain cases is Dihydrogen Monoxide.  
See www.dhmo.org     
  for more information.
 
BTW, for those of you who are challenged by chemistry, DHMO is also known as 
water.
 
Ghery S. Pettit
 

From: Ken Javor mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 1:21 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
 
The precautionary principle, as harmless and common sense as it sounds, is at 
the root of much mischief.  Said mischief is not inherent in the principle 
itself, but how it is used.  Since anyone can come up with a “what if 
“scenario, the principle ends up applied indiscriminately.  Just as John 
Woodgate describes, we have in place in the USA laws that prohibit any 
concentration of certain chemicals. These laws were passed when the ability to 
see a concentration might have been in the parts per million, but we have 
progressed to measuring parts per trillion, and the laws haven’t changed. If 
someone raises the issue of changing the law to allow some concentration above 
what is measurable, they are labeled as advocating pollution of the water 
supply, or air or whatever. 

As is often noted, “the dose is the poison.” Many things which are poison in 
large quantities are beneficial at lower levels.

Aspirin comes to mind.

Some time in the early ‘90s the keynote speaker at a US-based IEEE EMC 
symposium was someone active in EMF effects on health. He went so far as to say 
that in addition to eliminating EMF due to overhead power lines, and the like, 
we could not simply hide in a shield room, because our bodies evolved to live 
in an environment not totally free of EMF, so that totally eliminating them 
would be as problematical as too much.

Consider the “thought” process here.  Human beings evolved to survive with a 
life span of about 35 years.  In the Stone Age, by 35 you were a grandparent 
and arthritis, rheumatism, and the other ills of old age had combined to make 
you a drag on the tribe.  Discovery of Neanderthal man at first had them bent 
over and “Igor” like. It wasn’t until much later they realized that the 
skeletons had been ravaged by rheumatism/arthritis. The mistake was made 
because they could tell these people had died in their thirties, and that was 
deemed too early for these ills, so that they assumed these people were 
naturally misshapen.

In the USA at the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy was in 
the forties. All those cowboys smoking in the old westerns made perfect sense – 
the last thing those guys expected to die of was emphysema or heart disease or 
cancer.  The original USA social security retirement age of 65 was set to 
coincide with the mean date of expiration of the human body determined at that 
time.

A policy aimed at improving physical health and longevity but predicated on how 
we evolved is inherently flawed.  Those of us past 35 or so are in uncharted 
waters as to what does or does not promote or constrain longevity.
 
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

  _  

From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> >
Reply-To: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> >
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:34:07 +0100
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

   

There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says that 
if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level  to 
ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'.  Unfortunately, of course, 
opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is why 
we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are achievable 
(at a price), not because they are related to known effects. 
 
 

I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes, 
paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now.  If that 
reduced my 

Re: [PSES] FW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[John Woodgate]

Sounds a bit fishy to me.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-07-05 22:43, John Allen wrote:


In other words, become an "aquaphibian"/(or something like that :) )/ 
– “back to the Future” J


-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: 05 July 2018 22:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

"Do drink the water. Do not breathe the air."

Brian...

-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)


List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas 

Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher:  

David Heald: 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] FW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[John Allen]

In other words, become an "aquaphibian" (or something like that :) ) – “back to 
the Future” J

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: 05 July 2018 22:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

"Do drink the water. Do not breathe the air."

 

Brian...

 

-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

 

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas 

Mike Cantwell 

 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher:  

David Heald: 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[Brian O'Connell]

Recently talked to an actuary-type mathematician and a Dept of Agriculture 
scientist. They indicated that while mean life span once incrementally 
increased during 20th century USA, the available 21st century data no longer 
supports any future trend of consistent and incremental increases for the mean 
or median life expectancy.

My theory is that Dihydrogen Monoxide is not the specific root cause. The 
obvious problem is diatomic and monatomic forms per atomic number 8. It has 
eventually killed all humans that breathe it; that is, it is 100% fatal after 
any significant length of exposure. It can be a serious safety hazard for both 
normal and hazloc classified environments, and is a common long-term cause of 
failure for electrical equipment.

As for EM environments, from my late teens to my mid 20s, was constantly bathed 
in Ka to Ku band radiation. Did not affect my physical health, and as far as 
can be determined, and may have improved my mental health

Do drink the water. Do not breathe the air.

Brian

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[Ken Javor]

Those college students¹ knee jerk reaction to a scientific name for a
life-sustaining chemical is a perfect example of what I was saying below.
Over-the-top, but very apropos.

College students. Soon we will be at the point where a non-technical college
degree will be a negative incentive to hire someone.
 
From: Ghery Pettit 
Reply-To: 
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 13:29:20 -0700
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

Another chemical that is a problem in certain cases is Dihydrogen Monoxide.
See www.dhmo.org   for more information.
 
BTW, for those of you who are challenged by chemistry, DHMO is also known as
water.
 
Ghery S. Pettit
 

From: Ken Javor 
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 1:21 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
 
The precautionary principle, as harmless and common sense as it sounds, is
at the root of much mischief.  Said mischief is not inherent in the
principle itself, but how it is used.  Since anyone can come up with a ³what
if ³scenario, the principle ends up applied indiscriminately.  Just as John
Woodgate describes, we have in place in the USA laws that prohibit any
concentration of certain chemicals. These laws were passed when the ability
to see a concentration might have been in the parts per million, but we have
progressed to measuring parts per trillion, and the laws haven¹t changed. If
someone raises the issue of changing the law to allow some concentration
above what is measurable, they are labeled as advocating pollution of the
water supply, or air or whatever.

As is often noted, ³the dose is the poison.² Many things which are poison in
large quantities are beneficial at lower levels.

Aspirin comes to mind.

Some time in the early Œ90s the keynote speaker at a US-based IEEE EMC
symposium was someone active in EMF effects on health. He went so far as to
say that in addition to eliminating EMF due to overhead power lines, and the
like, we could not simply hide in a shield room, because our bodies evolved
to live in an environment not totally free of EMF, so that totally
eliminating them would be as problematical as too much.

Consider the ³thought² process here.  Human beings evolved to survive with a
life span of about 35 years.  In the Stone Age, by 35 you were a grandparent
and arthritis, rheumatism, and the other ills of old age had combined to
make you a drag on the tribe.  Discovery of Neanderthal man at first had
them bent over and ³Igor² like. It wasn¹t until much later they realized
that the skeletons had been ravaged by rheumatism/arthritis. The mistake was
made because they could tell these people had died in their thirties, and
that was deemed too early for these ills, so that they assumed these people
were naturally misshapen.

In the USA at the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy was
in the forties. All those cowboys smoking in the old westerns made perfect
sense ­ the last thing those guys expected to die of was emphysema or heart
disease or cancer.  The original USA social security retirement age of 65
was set to coincide with the mean date of expiration of the human body
determined at that time.

A policy aimed at improving physical health and longevity but predicated on
how we evolved is inherently flawed.  Those of us past 35 or so are in
uncharted waters as to what does or does not promote or constrain longevity.
 
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: John Woodgate 
Reply-To: John Woodgate 
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:34:07 +0100
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

   

There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says
that if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level
to ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'.  Unfortunately, of course,
opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is
why we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are
achievable (at a price), not because they are related to known effects.
 
 

I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes,
paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now.  If that
reduced my intellectual capacity, much is explained.:-P
 
 
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk 

Rayleigh, Essex UK
 
On 2018-07-05 20:12, John Woodgate wrote:
 
 
>  
> 
> Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, more in
> Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated by
> Scandinavian trades unions concerned about 'radiation' from CRT displays.
> Adverse health effects of a general nature (headaches,  insomnia, general
> malaise) were very likely much more due to poor working conditions and job
> interest, but the unions are very powerful.
> 
> 
> You can't subject people to increasingly 

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[John Allen]

Ghery

 

"Thanks" for that link - seems like we should all stop drinking/using WATER.
Then just die of thirst and/or malnutrition and/or illness due to lack of
basic hygiene! ;)

 

Just goes to "show" that almost EVERYTHING (including thus EMF!), in "life"
comes with "risks" - but didn't we all already know that (but, apparently
almost everyone else doesn't actually realize, and deal with,
"IT"/"THEM"/all of "THEM")! 

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK.

 

 

 

 

From: Ghery Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] 
Sent: 05 July 2018 21:29
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

 

Another chemical that is a problem in certain cases is Dihydrogen Monoxide.
See www.dhmo.org for more information.

 

BTW, for those of you who are challenged by chemistry, DHMO is also known as
water.

 

Ghery S. Pettit

 

From: Ken Javor  
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 1:21 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

 

The precautionary principle, as harmless and common sense as it sounds, is
at the root of much mischief.  Said mischief is not inherent in the
principle itself, but how it is used.  Since anyone can come up with a "what
if "scenario, the principle ends up applied indiscriminately.  Just as John
Woodgate describes, we have in place in the USA laws that prohibit any
concentration of certain chemicals. These laws were passed when the ability
to see a concentration might have been in the parts per million, but we have
progressed to measuring parts per trillion, and the laws haven't changed. If
someone raises the issue of changing the law to allow some concentration
above what is measurable, they are labeled as advocating pollution of the
water supply, or air or whatever. 

As is often noted, "the dose is the poison." Many things which are poison in
large quantities are beneficial at lower levels.

Aspirin comes to mind.

Some time in the early '90s the keynote speaker at a US-based IEEE EMC
symposium was someone active in EMF effects on health. He went so far as to
say that in addition to eliminating EMF due to overhead power lines, and the
like, we could not simply hide in a shield room, because our bodies evolved
to live in an environment not totally free of EMF, so that totally
eliminating them would be as problematical as too much.

Consider the "thought" process here.  Human beings evolved to survive with a
life span of about 35 years.  In the Stone Age, by 35 you were a grandparent
and arthritis, rheumatism, and the other ills of old age had combined to
make you a drag on the tribe.  Discovery of Neanderthal man at first had
them bent over and "Igor" like. It wasn't until much later they realized
that the skeletons had been ravaged by rheumatism/arthritis. The mistake was
made because they could tell these people had died in their thirties, and
that was deemed too early for these ills, so that they assumed these people
were naturally misshapen.

In the USA at the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy was
in the forties. All those cowboys smoking in the old westerns made perfect
sense - the last thing those guys expected to die of was emphysema or heart
disease or cancer.  The original USA social security retirement age of 65
was set to coincide with the mean date of expiration of the human body
determined at that time.

A policy aimed at improving physical health and longevity but predicated on
how we evolved is inherently flawed.  Those of us past 35 or so are in
uncharted waters as to what does or does not promote or constrain longevity.
 
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



  _  

From: John Woodgate 
Reply-To: John Woodgate 
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:34:07 +0100
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

   

There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says
that if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level
to ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'.  Unfortunately, of course,
opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is
why we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are
achievable (at a price), not because they are related to known effects. 
 
 

I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes,
paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now.  If that
reduced my intellectual capacity, much is explained.:-P
 
 
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk  
 
Rayleigh, Essex UK
 
On 2018-07-05 20:12, John Woodgate wrote:
 
 

 

Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, more
in Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated by
Scandinavian trades unions concerned about 'radiation' from CRT displays.
Adverse health effects of a general nature (headaches,  

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[Doug Smith]

Hi Ken and the group,

Ken you make very good points!

One interesting point. Heart disease and arthritis are, for the most part, 
nutritional deficiency diseases, easily avoided if one knows what one is doing, 
which most do not. It is not possible to get adequate amounts of required 
nutrients, like magnesium for instance, from our modern food. I have used 
engineering analysis of the published scientific literature to figure out what 
is lacking and manually add it back in. The result is me at 71 having no 
problems of aging or medicines, etc. Just the occasional athletic injury which 
I have encountered most of my life. I run miles and miles at 110 degrees in the 
desert with no ill effects! If any of you are interested in this, I uploaded 
years of accumulated information to a hidden directory of my website. It is not 
organized, just a lot of files. The URL is: http://emcesd.com/Health. Great if 
you are having insomnia some night.

Maybe we will know RF effects in detail like the above at some point.

Doug








On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:20:56 -0500, Ken Javor  wrote:






The precautionary principle, as harmless and common sense as it sounds, is at 
the root of much mischief. Said mischief is not inherent in the principle 
itself, but how it is used. Since anyone can come up with a “what if 
“scenario, the principle ends up applied indiscriminately. Just as John 
Woodgate describes, we have in place in the USA laws that prohibit any 
concentration of certain chemicals. These laws were passed when the ability to 
see a concentration might have been in the parts per million, but we have 
progressed to measuring parts per trillion, and the laws haven’t changed. If 
someone raises the issue of changing the law to allow some concentration above 
what is measurable, they are labeled as advocating pollution of the water 
supply, or air or whatever.

As is often noted, “the dose is the poison.” Many things which are poison in 
large quantities are beneficial at lower levels.

Aspirin comes to mind.

Some time in the early ‘90s the keynote speaker at a US-based IEEE EMC 
symposium was someone active in EMF effects on health. He went so far as to say 
that in addition to eliminating EMF due to overhead power lines, and the like, 
we could not simply hide in a shield room, because our bodies evolved to live 
in an environment not totally free of EMF, so that totally eliminating them 
would be as problematical as too much.

Consider the “thought” process here. Human beings evolved to survive with 
a life span of about 35 years. In the Stone Age, by 35 you were a 
grandparent and arthritis, rheumatism, and the other ills of old age had 
combined to make you a drag on the tribe. Discovery of Neanderthal man at 
first had them bent over and “Igor” like. It wasn’t until much later they 
realized that the skeletons had been ravaged by rheumatism/arthritis. The 
mistake was made because they could tell these people had died in their 
thirties, and that was deemed too early for these ills, so that they assumed 
these people were naturally misshapen.

In the USA at the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy was in 
the forties. All those cowboys smoking in the old westerns made perfect sense – 
the last thing those guys expected to die of was emphysema or heart disease or 
cancer. The original USA social security retirement age of 65 was set to 
coincide with the mean date of expiration of the human body determined at that 
time.

A policy aimed at improving physical health and longevity but predicated on how 
we evolved is inherently flawed. Those of us past 35 or so are in 
uncharted waters as to what does or does not promote or constrain longevity.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: John Woodgate j...@woodjohn.uk
Reply-To: John Woodgate j...@woodjohn.uk
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:34:07 +0100
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields



There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says that 
if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level to 
ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'. Unfortunately, of course, 
opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is why 
we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are achievable 
(at a price), not because they are related to known effects.



I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes, 
paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now. If that 
reduced my intellectual capacity, much is explained.:-P


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk http://www.woodjohn.uk;
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-07-05 20:12, John Woodgate wrote:





Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, more in 
Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated by 
Scandinavian trades unions 

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[Ghery Pettit]

Another chemical that is a problem in certain cases is Dihydrogen Monoxide.
See www.dhmo.org   for more information.

 

BTW, for those of you who are challenged by chemistry, DHMO is also known as
water.

 

Ghery S. Pettit

 

From: Ken Javor  
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 1:21 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

 

The precautionary principle, as harmless and common sense as it sounds, is
at the root of much mischief.  Said mischief is not inherent in the
principle itself, but how it is used.  Since anyone can come up with a "what
if "scenario, the principle ends up applied indiscriminately.  Just as John
Woodgate describes, we have in place in the USA laws that prohibit any
concentration of certain chemicals. These laws were passed when the ability
to see a concentration might have been in the parts per million, but we have
progressed to measuring parts per trillion, and the laws haven't changed. If
someone raises the issue of changing the law to allow some concentration
above what is measurable, they are labeled as advocating pollution of the
water supply, or air or whatever. 

As is often noted, "the dose is the poison." Many things which are poison in
large quantities are beneficial at lower levels.

Aspirin comes to mind.

Some time in the early '90s the keynote speaker at a US-based IEEE EMC
symposium was someone active in EMF effects on health. He went so far as to
say that in addition to eliminating EMF due to overhead power lines, and the
like, we could not simply hide in a shield room, because our bodies evolved
to live in an environment not totally free of EMF, so that totally
eliminating them would be as problematical as too much.

Consider the "thought" process here.  Human beings evolved to survive with a
life span of about 35 years.  In the Stone Age, by 35 you were a grandparent
and arthritis, rheumatism, and the other ills of old age had combined to
make you a drag on the tribe.  Discovery of Neanderthal man at first had
them bent over and "Igor" like. It wasn't until much later they realized
that the skeletons had been ravaged by rheumatism/arthritis. The mistake was
made because they could tell these people had died in their thirties, and
that was deemed too early for these ills, so that they assumed these people
were naturally misshapen.

In the USA at the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy was
in the forties. All those cowboys smoking in the old westerns made perfect
sense - the last thing those guys expected to die of was emphysema or heart
disease or cancer.  The original USA social security retirement age of 65
was set to coincide with the mean date of expiration of the human body
determined at that time.

A policy aimed at improving physical health and longevity but predicated on
how we evolved is inherently flawed.  Those of us past 35 or so are in
uncharted waters as to what does or does not promote or constrain longevity.
 
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261




  _  

From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> >
Reply-To: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> >
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:34:07 +0100
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

   

There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says
that if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level
to ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'.  Unfortunately, of course,
opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is
why we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are
achievable (at a price), not because they are related to known effects. 
 
 

I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes,
paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now.  If that
reduced my intellectual capacity, much is explained.:-P
 
 
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk 
  
Rayleigh, Essex UK
 
On 2018-07-05 20:12, John Woodgate wrote:
 
 

 

Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, more
in Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated by
Scandinavian trades unions concerned about 'radiation' from CRT displays.
Adverse health effects of a general nature (headaches,  insomnia, general
malaise) were very likely much more due to poor working conditions and job
interest, but the unions are very powerful.


You can't subject people to increasingly strong fields until they show a
reaction, it would be highly unethical. 

 
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk 
  
Rayleigh, Essex UK
 
 


 -


This message 

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[Ken Javor]

The precautionary principle, as harmless and common sense as it sounds, is
at the root of much mischief.  Said mischief is not inherent in the
principle itself, but how it is used.  Since anyone can come up with a ³what
if ³scenario, the principle ends up applied indiscriminately.  Just as John
Woodgate describes, we have in place in the USA laws that prohibit any
concentration of certain chemicals. These laws were passed when the ability
to see a concentration might have been in the parts per million, but we have
progressed to measuring parts per trillion, and the laws haven¹t changed. If
someone raises the issue of changing the law to allow some concentration
above what is measurable, they are labeled as advocating pollution of the
water supply, or air or whatever.

As is often noted, ³the dose is the poison.² Many things which are poison in
large quantities are beneficial at lower levels.

Aspirin comes to mind.

Some time in the early Œ90s the keynote speaker at a US-based IEEE EMC
symposium was someone active in EMF effects on health. He went so far as to
say that in addition to eliminating EMF due to overhead power lines, and the
like, we could not simply hide in a shield room, because our bodies evolved
to live in an environment not totally free of EMF, so that totally
eliminating them would be as problematical as too much.

Consider the ³thought² process here.  Human beings evolved to survive with a
life span of about 35 years.  In the Stone Age, by 35 you were a grandparent
and arthritis, rheumatism, and the other ills of old age had combined to
make you a drag on the tribe.  Discovery of Neanderthal man at first had
them bent over and ³Igor² like. It wasn¹t until much later they realized
that the skeletons had been ravaged by rheumatism/arthritis. The mistake was
made because they could tell these people had died in their thirties, and
that was deemed too early for these ills, so that they assumed these people
were naturally misshapen.

In the USA at the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy was
in the forties. All those cowboys smoking in the old westerns made perfect
sense ­ the last thing those guys expected to die of was emphysema or heart
disease or cancer.  The original USA social security retirement age of 65
was set to coincide with the mean date of expiration of the human body
determined at that time.

A policy aimed at improving physical health and longevity but predicated on
how we evolved is inherently flawed.  Those of us past 35 or so are in
uncharted waters as to what does or does not promote or constrain longevity.
 
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261




From: John Woodgate 
Reply-To: John Woodgate 
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:34:07 +0100
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

   

There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says
that if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level 
to ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'.  Unfortunately, of course,
opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is
why we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are
achievable (at a price), not because they are related to known effects.
 
 

I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes,
paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now.  If that
reduced my intellectual capacity, much is explained.:-P
 
 
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK
 
On 2018-07-05 20:12, John Woodgate wrote:
 
 
>   
> 
> Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, more in
> Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated by
> Scandinavian trades unions concerned about 'radiation' from CRT displays.
> Adverse health effects of a general nature (headaches,  insomnia, general
> malaise) were very likely much more due to poor working conditions and job
> interest, but the unions are very powerful.
>  
> 
> You can't subject people to increasingly strong fields until they show a
> reaction, it would be highly unethical.
>  
>  
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk 
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>  
>  
 
 -


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) 

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[John Woodgate]

There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This 
says that if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce 
its level  to ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'.  
Unfortunately, of course, opinions differ very widely on what that level 
is, in many cases. This is why we see concentration limits of parts per 
trillion, because they are achievable (at a price), not because they are 
related to known effects.


I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead 
(pipes, paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now.  
If that reduced my intellectual capacity, much is explained.:-P


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-07-05 20:12, John Woodgate wrote:


Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, 
more in Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was 
generated by Scandinavian trades unions concerned about 'radiation' 
from CRT displays. Adverse health effects of a general 
nature(headaches,  insomnia, general malaise) were very likely much 
more due to poor working conditions and job interest, but the unions 
are very powerful.


You can't subject people to increasingly strong fields until they show 
a reaction, it would be highly unethical.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[John Woodgate]

Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, 
more in Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated 
by Scandinavian trades unions concerned about 'radiation' from CRT 
displays. Adverse health effects of a general nature(headaches, 
insomnia, general malaise) were very likely much more due to poor 
working conditions and job interest, but the unions are very powerful.


You can't subject people to increasingly strong fields until they show a 
reaction, it would be highly unethical.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-07-05 19:55, Doug Smith wrote:

Hi Michael and the group,

With the exception tissue heating generated by some sources at very 
high frequencies, I wonder if the EM field exposure worries today are 
a bit overblown. I started my experiments in high voltage  (100,000+ 
Volts, and NOT static electricity) around age 13 and by age 14 was 
regularly immersing myself in 10,000+V/m, 300 kHz fields. It was fun, 
heating up screw driver blades from induction heating, lighting 
incandescent light bulbs (as well as fluorescent tubes) without wires, 
and more. About 600 Watts of RF energy was concentrated in the 
relatively small space I was in and I was uninjured! My kids all have 
two arms, two legs, and one head and I am still here almost 60 years 
later and healthier than 90% of adults of any age from 18 on. Some of 
my friends say this explains a lot about me (frying brain cells) though.


I realize this is only one case, but have had a lot of high energy RF 
exposure throughout my life. Such as the field in my dorm room from my 
amateur radio transmitter being so strong that the fluorescent tubes 
in the room lit up with no power and blinked with Morse code. I had to 
remove the tubes from their fixtures and cover with towels so my 
roommate could sleep.


Still here,
Doug



On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 16:27:12 +0100, Michael Derby wrote:

It’s not quite an “unintentional radiator” but if you had a wireless 
charger which did not contain any communication (e.g., a dumb charging 
signal without handshaking), then it would come within the scope of 
the EMCD and the LVD (not the RED), and RF Exposure would therefore be 
an issue under the LVD.


Michael.

*From:*McCallum, Andy [mailto:andy.mccal...@mottmac.com]
*Sent:* 05 July 2018 15:33
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

Be surprised if any LVD could cause EMF large enough to pose a danger 
to Human Health. Intentional transmitters maybe, a rare beast to 
create those levels unintentionally at less than 1000V.


Andy

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* 05 July 2018 10:28
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows 
that a simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable 
likelihood of producing sufficiently strong EMF.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk 


Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote:

EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard.

Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing
radio transmitters?

Best regards

Amund

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html



Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/


can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[Doug Smith]

Hi Michael and the group,

With the exception tissue heating generated by some sources at very high 
frequencies, I wonder if the EM field exposure worries today are a bit 
overblown. I started my experiments in high voltage (100,000+ Volts, and 
NOT static electricity) around age 13 and by age 14 was regularly immersing 
myself in 10,000+V/m, 300 kHz fields. It was fun, heating up screw driver 
blades from induction heating, lighting incandescent light bulbs (as well as 
fluorescent tubes) without wires, and more. About 600 Watts of RF energy was 
concentrated in the relatively small space I was in and I was uninjured! My 
kids all have two arms, two legs, and one head and I am still here almost 60 
years later and healthier than 90% of adults of any age from 18 on. Some of my 
friends say this explains a lot about me (frying brain cells) though.

I realize this is only one case, but have had a lot of high energy RF exposure 
throughout my life. Such as the field in my dorm room from my amateur radio 
transmitter being so strong that the fluorescent tubes in the room lit up with 
no power and blinked with Morse code. I had to remove the tubes from their 
fixtures and cover with towels so my roommate could sleep.

Still here,
Doug








On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 16:27:12 +0100, Michael Derby  wrote:






It’s not quite an “unintentional radiator” but if you had a wireless charger 
which did not contain any communication (e.g., a dumb charging signal without 
handshaking), then it would come within the scope of the EMCD and the LVD 
(not the RED), and RF Exposure would therefore be an issue under the LVD.



Michael.







From: McCallum, Andy [mailto:andy.mccal...@mottmac.com]
Sent: 05 July 2018 15:33
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields





Be surprised if any LVD could cause EMF large enough to pose a danger to Human 
Health. Intentional transmitters maybe, a rare beast to create those levels 
unintentionally at less than 1000V.



Andy 





From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: 05 July 2018 10:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields





It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows that a 
simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable likelihood of 
producing sufficiently strong EMF.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk

Rayleigh, Essex UK


On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote:



EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. 

Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio 
transmitters?





Best regards

Amund

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com 




-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can 

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[Michael Derby]

It's not quite an "unintentional radiator" but if you had a wireless charger
which did not contain any communication (e.g., a dumb charging signal
without handshaking),  then it would come within the scope of the EMCD and
the LVD (not the RED), and RF Exposure would therefore be an issue under the
LVD.

 

Michael.

 

 

From: McCallum, Andy [mailto:andy.mccal...@mottmac.com] 
Sent: 05 July 2018 15:33
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

 

Be surprised if any LVD could cause EMF large enough to pose a danger to
Human Health. Intentional transmitters maybe, a rare beast to create those
levels unintentionally at less than 1000V.

 

Andy 

 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: 05 July 2018 10:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

 

It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows that a
simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable likelihood of
producing sufficiently strong EMF.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
 
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote:

EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. 

Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio
transmitters?

 

 

Best regards

Amund

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
  can be used for
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
 
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)
 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
  

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
  can be used for
graphics 

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[McCallum, Andy]

Be surprised if any LVD could cause EMF large enough to pose a danger to Human 
Health. Intentional transmitters maybe, a rare beast to create those levels 
unintentionally at less than 1000V.

Andy

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: 05 July 2018 10:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields


It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows that a 
simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable likelihood of 
producing sufficiently strong EMF.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates 
www.woodjohn.uk

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote:
EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard.
Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio 
transmitters?


Best regards
Amund
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[John Woodgate]

The frequency range is DC to 300 GHz, so power frequency magnetic fields 
are included. Some household appliances used to produce quite strong 
fields very close to the casing. Historically, bulk erasers for magnetic 
recording tape produced strong magnetic fields. The requirements include 
large 'safety factors' because research is ethically challenging, and 
adverse health effects are widely attributed to causes other than the 
real ones.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-07-05 15:32, McCallum, Andy wrote:


Be surprised if any LVD could cause EMF large enough to pose a danger 
to Human Health. Intentional transmitters maybe, a rare beast to 
create those levels unintentionally at less than 1000V.


Andy

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* 05 July 2018 10:28
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows 
that a simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable 
likelihood of producing sufficiently strong EMF.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk 


Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote:

EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard.

Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing
radio transmitters?

Best regards

Amund

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html



Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/


can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/


Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)


List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html




For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 



Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[John Woodgate]

It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows that 
a simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable 
likelihood of producing sufficiently strong EMF.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote:


EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard.

Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio 
transmitters?


Best regards

Amund

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] AW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[Dürrer Bernd]

Hi Amund,

the answer can be found in the scope of the standard: "This International 
Standard applies to electronic and electrical equipment for which no dedicated 
product- or product family standard regarding human exposure to electromagnetic 
fields applies. [...] NOTE This standard is intended to cover both intentional 
and non-intentional radiators. If the equipment complies with the requirements 
in another relevant standard, e.g. EN 50371 covering low power equipment, then 
the requirements of this standard (IEC 62311) are considered to be met and the 
application of this standard to that equipment is not necessary. See also 
Clause 7.2."
https://webstore.iec.ch/preview/info_iec62311%7Bed1.0%7Db.pdf

As non-intentional radiators are in the scope, it applies to any LVD product, 
unless a dedicated product standard applies.

Kind regards,

Bernd

Von: Amund Westin 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2018 11:10
An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Betreff: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard.
Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio 
transmitters?


Best regards
Amund
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald 




WILO SE
Nortkirchenstrasse 100, 44263 Dortmund
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 21356
www.wilo.com

Vorstand/Executive Board:
Oliver Hermes (Vorsitzender/Chairman), Carsten Krumm, Georg Weber, Mathias 
Weyers
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender/Chairman of the Supervisory Board:
Prof. Dr. Norbert Wieselhuber

Dieses Dokument ist vertraulich zu behandeln. Die Weitergabe sowie 
Vervielfaeltigung, Verwertung und Mitteilung seines Inhalts ist nur mit unserer 
ausdruecklichen Genehmigung gestattet. Alle Rechte vorbehalten, insbesondere 
fuer den Fall der Schutzrechtsanmeldung.

This document has to be treated confidentially. Its contents are not to be 
passed on, duplicated, exploited or disclosed without our expressed permission. 
All rights reserved, especially the right to apply for protective rights.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[Amund Westin]

EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. 

Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio
transmitters?

 

 

Best regards

Amund


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: